Jump to content


Photo

THANK YOU FOR SMOKING - bad look, what was it shot on?


  • Please log in to reply
5 replies to this topic

#1 Matt Pacini

Matt Pacini
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1246 posts

Posted 19 May 2006 - 04:57 PM

I saw this a few days ago.
I liked the film, but it had a really contrasty look, which is odd for a comedy.
The thing was, the highlights were REALLY blown out bad in probably 75% of the film, but even stranger, it was always on the faces.
It's like they lit the key characters a couple stops higher than everything else, and lots of blowing out going on in the faces.
Was I seeing a video-to-35mm print?

MP
  • 0

#2 Michael Nash

Michael Nash
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3330 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Pasadena, CA

Posted 19 May 2006 - 05:00 PM

I haven't seen the film, but it sounds like a mix of formats.

http://www.imdb.com/...27944/technical
  • 0

#3 Mike Williamson

Mike Williamson
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 534 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 19 May 2006 - 07:44 PM

There are a few specific places where they mix different formats in for effect, for example the scene where Nick and his son arrive on vacation which was shot with an MPEG format on a digital still camera. Largely it was shot on 35mm anamorphic, but maybe some of what you're seeing is due to the DI. There's an article on the film in the April '06 issue of ICG Magazine. I saw a preview screening of it at AFI with the director and I thought it was a lot of fun, I'd highly recommend it to anybody who likes black comedies.
  • 0

#4 Eric Steelberg ASC

Eric Steelberg ASC
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 538 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, CA

Posted 19 May 2006 - 08:02 PM

The director and co-producer are both close friends of mine. We've been working together for years. What you are referring to is the contrast which was added in the DI. Jason tends to like contrast and blown highlights so what you were seeing was deliberate. I've done most of his commercials and he's used to having the control to get that look digitally. With him, I've learned to light more contrasty as opposed to cranking up the contrast in post. We get a result we're much happier with. You can see some of his commercials on my website to see what I'm talking about.
  • 0

#5 David Sweetman

David Sweetman
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 757 posts
  • Student

Posted 19 May 2006 - 09:37 PM

I liked the film, but it had a really contrasty look, which is odd for a comedy.


Odd for comedy, but not for satire, which was more the tone of this film. I thought it fit well. If I recall correctly from when I saw it, it was shot on anamorphics, which was a curious decision to me because of the increased effort of getting a wide shot, which increases the humor.

edit: just read the previous posts and realized half of this was redundant...oh well, I stand by it.

Edited by David Sweetman, 19 May 2006 - 09:41 PM.

  • 0

#6 Landis Tanaka

Landis Tanaka
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 54 posts
  • Student

Posted 03 June 2006 - 06:59 PM

I thought it looked beautiful. The quality when they were at the carnival! Oh my!

and when he got kidnapped and had all those nicotene stickers slapped on him and had a dream of him being in a fire...was that XL2 footy?
  • 0


Metropolis Post

Paralinx LLC

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Aerial Filmworks

Ritter Battery

Abel Cine

CineLab

Wooden Camera

Opal

FJS International, LLC

Rig Wheels Passport

Technodolly

Visual Products

CineTape

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

The Slider

Glidecam

Willys Widgets

Tai Audio

rebotnix Technologies

Broadcast Solutions Inc

CineLab

Ritter Battery

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Technodolly

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

CineTape

Aerial Filmworks

Abel Cine

Opal

Rig Wheels Passport

The Slider

FJS International, LLC

Willys Widgets

Paralinx LLC

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Glidecam

Visual Products

Wooden Camera

Metropolis Post

rebotnix Technologies

Tai Audio